Catherine Sau Yun Ma

The Missanabie Cree First Nation appealed a trial decision that determined the "crystallization date" for calculating their Treaty No. 9 reserve land entitlement was 1906, the year they adhered to the Treaty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge correctly interpreted the Treaty's reserve clause and the common intention of the parties, and properly distinguished other treaty cases.

The court also addressed ancillary issues, admitting fresh evidence of a settlement between Canada and MCFN, lifting a sealing order on the settlement, and dismissing Canada's abuse of process motion to dismiss the appeal against it.

A case management conference was held to address the parties' efforts to clarify the scope of the plaintiff's claims.

The plaintiff delivered a proposed amended statement of claim following demands for particulars and written interrogatories.

The defendants required additional time to review the proposed claim to determine consent, timetable impacts, and the scope of any necessary motions.

A further case management conference was scheduled to address these issues.

This case conference endorsement addresses several procedural issues in ongoing litigation involving Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians against the Attorney General of Canada and His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario.

The endorsement finalizes the content of a notice for intervention motions, adjusts the timetable for cross-examinations and factum deliveries, resolves confidentiality concerns regarding expert reports appended to motion materials, and confirms the venue for intervention motion hearings.

A case conference was held to address procedural issues arising from a prior endorsement in an Indigenous land claim action.

The court determined the content and scope of a notice to be delivered to Haudenosaunee communities, ruling that the defendants could state their position in the notice and that delivery would not be expanded to Treaty 18 and 19 beneficiaries to avoid undue complexity.

The court also held that no special communications protocol was necessary and declined to order the proposed intervener, Men's Fire, to deliver a pleading.

A case management conference was held in an Aboriginal land claim action to address procedural issues.

The defendants sought clarification of the plaintiff's claims following the delivery of the plaintiff's expert reports.

The court directed the defendants to deliver demands for particulars and written interrogatories, and the plaintiff to respond or amend its statement of claim.

The court also amended the timetable for the delivery of expert reports due to delays.

Finally, the court ordered that parties must not disclose unfiled expert reports to non-parties, other than retained or potential experts, without first raising the issue in case management.

In a long-running Indigenous land claim concerning alleged Crown breaches of fiduciary and treaty obligations arising from the Haldimand Proclamation and Simcoe Patent, the court issued a case conference endorsement setting the process for forthcoming intervention motions.

The court declined to make case conferences public, but directed broader notice to affected Haudenosaunee communities and supported creation of a website containing publicly filed materials.

The court rejected, at this stage, informal in situ proceedings to gather process submissions or appointment of an amicus curiae, while indicating the intervention motions should be heard in person on the lands at issue if feasible, failing which in Brantford.

A timetable was fixed to move the intervention motions forward efficiently while allowing additional interested groups time to participate.

The Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) brought a motion to be added as a party and appointed as a representative of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy in an action commenced by the Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians against Canada and Ontario.

Following case conferences, the parties and HDI consented to a timetable for the motion and terms for providing notice to potentially interested non-parties.

The court issued an order on consent setting out the timetable and the specific notice requirements.

This is an appeal management endorsement providing directions for an appeal concerning the determination of the Missanabie Cree population for Treaty 9 reserve entitlement.

The endorsement addresses issues with exhibit books, factum lengths, electronic document formats, a timetable for materials, motions for leave to intervene, oral hearing compendia, and sets a hearing length and date.

It also provides general notice for intervention motions.

The applicants in the main proceeding sought access to youth criminal records related to a sexual assault investigation for use in a civil action.

The Attorney General and the Chief of Police brought a preliminary motion seeking release of the records to them to determine if other young persons, such as witnesses or victims, should be given notice of the application due to privacy interests.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the Youth Criminal Justice Act's statutory scheme for access to records does not require notice to witnesses, and the court cannot effectively amend the legislation to create a new notice provision.

The proposed amicus curiae brought a motion on consent to be appointed as amicus for the appellant in an appeal from the Consent and Capacity Board, after Legal Aid Ontario denied funding.

The proposed amicus stated the appellant was incapable of self-representation and required an amicus to make written and oral submissions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed role was that of full-fledged counsel rather than a friend of the court, which is not the proper role of a court-appointed amicus.

The plaintiff First Nation sued the City of Winnipeg for compensation for injurious affection caused by Winnipeg's water-taking from Shoal Lake, and sued the Province of Ontario for breach of fiduciary duty for failing to protect the plaintiff's interests and ensure compensation.

Ontario moved to strike the breach of fiduciary duty claims under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff's claims based on sui generis and ad hoc fiduciary duties were doomed to fail, given the historical context, the 1913 Order in Council, and the Crown's potential discretionary control over the plaintiff's cognizable Aboriginal interests.

In a case management conference, the plaintiff requested an amendment to the Discovery Timetable to allow more time to deliver written questions arising from the recent production of approximately 4,000 additional documents by the defendant.

The defendants did not dispute the need for additional time but questioned the structure of the questioning stages.

The court granted the amendment, extending the deadlines for the delivery of follow-up written questions and answers, and maintained the remainder of the timetable.

A case management conference was held to address amendments to the discovery timetable and issues arising from the recent production of approximately 4,000 documents by the defendant.

On consent, the court amended the discovery timetable while maintaining the existing expert report timetable.

The conference was adjourned to allow the defendant to investigate and clarify which of the recently produced documents were new versus already produced.

A case management conference was held to review the progress of the action.

The parties reported compliance with several steps in the established timetable, including the delivery of pleadings, supplementary affidavits of documents, and written examination questions.

However, due to the volume and scope of the written questions, the parties requested an adjournment to assess the time needed to respond.

The court adjourned the conference to allow the parties to confer and propose a variation to the timetable.